Document 6516248

Transcription

Document 6516248

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
2001. Vol. 80, No. 2, 325-339
Copyright 200! by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
0022-3514/01/S5.00 DOI: 10.1037//O022-3514.80.2.325
What Is Satisfying About Satisfying Events?
Testing 10 Candidate Psychological Needs
Kennon M. Sheldon
Andrew J. Elliot and Youngmee Kim
University of Missouri—Columbia
University of Rochester
Tim Kasser
Knox College
Three studies compared 10 candidate psychological needs in an attempt to determine which are truly
most fundamental for humans. Participants described "most satisfying events" within their lives and then
rated the salience of each of the 10 candidate needs within these events. Supporting self-determination
theory postulates (Ryan & Deci, 2000)—autonomy, competence, and relatedness, were consistently
among the top 4 needs, in terms of both their salience and their association with event-related affect.
Self-esteem was also important, whereas self-actualization or meaning, physical thriving, popularity or
influence, and mbney-luxury were less important. This basic pattern emerged within three different time
frames and within both U.S. and South Korean samples and also within a final study that asked, "What's
unsatisfying about unsatisfying events?" Implications for hierarchical theories of needs are discussed.
potential needs that have been posited and the corresponding lack
of consensus regarding which are most central or primary. In this
sense the psychological need construct stands in the same stead as
the early instinct concept, which collapsed because of a similar
multiplicity (Weiner, 1992). In addition, there has been little
consensus on the exact definition of needs. Are they ineluctable
motive forces, pushing out from the person, or are they required
experiential inputs, coming into the person (McClelland, 1985)?
Furthermore, there is little consensus on what criteria to use to
identify needs. Do needs refer to almost any type of desire or
craving, or perhaps only to certain special, health-inducing motives (Ryan, 1995)? Finally, it is unclear where psychological
needs come from. Are they acquired individual differences, perhaps learned early in life and perhaps varying across cultures, or
are they inherent and universal in their scope, perhaps enplaced
into human nature by evolution (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992)?
Psychologists have long speculated about the fundamental psychological needs of humans, beginning with McDougall (1908)
and Freud (1920) and continuing on through Murray (1938) and
Maslow (1954) to the present day (Baumeister & Leary, 1995;
Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000). Need concepts are
attractive because they can potentially provide genotypic explanations for the wide variety of phenotypic behaviors that individuals
express (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). By assuming that humans
strive for certain fundamental qualities of experience, one is enabled to see unity (or equifinality) within broad diversities of
behavior. Need concepts are also attractive because they readily
suggest psychosocial interventions. That is, once identified, psychological needs can be targeted to enhance personal thriving, in
the same way that the organic needs of plants, once identified, can
be targeted to maximize thriving in the plant (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Finally, need constructs may offer a way to unify the field of
motivational psychology, in the same way that the Big Five model
has served to unify trait psychology. To settle on a basic set of
human needs would serve to anchor a wide variety of motivational
and functional analyses.
The purpose of this article is to comparatively examine 10
different feelings, each of which has been proposed as a need by
prominent psychological theories, in order to determine which
candidate needs can best be supported by data. In so doing, we will
assume and try to demonstrate that psychological needs are particular qualities of experience that all people require to thrive
(Deci & Ryan, in press; Sheldon, Ryan, & Reis, 1996). Thus, our
definition views needs primarily as necessary inputs rather than as
driving motives, leaving open the possibility that particular motives may not satisfy organismic needs, even if they are attained
(Sheldon & Kasser, 1998). As a primary criterion for evaluating
the importance of candidate needs, we will measure the extent to
which each need accompanies the "most satisfying events" that
people describe as having occurred within varying periods of time.
As can be seen, our chosen methodology relies in part on an
analysis of natural language: What do people mean when they say
some experience was satisfying? By starting with self-identified
Unfortunately, the utility of the psychological need construct
has been limited thus far. In part, this is due to the large number of
Kennon M. Sheldon, Department of Psychology, University of Missouri—Columbia; Andrew J. Elliot and Youngmee Kim, Department of
Psychology, University of Rochester; Tim Kasser, Department of Psychology, Knox College.
We thank Taeyun Jung for his help in the South Korean data collection
and Rich Ryan for his comments on a draft of the article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kennon
M. Sheldon, Department of Psychology, 210 McAlester Hall, University of
Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211. Electronic mail may be sent to
sheldonk ©missouri.edu.
325
326
SHELDON, ELLIOT, KIM, AND KASSER
satisfying events and then examining what psychological characteristics are most salient within them, we hope to gain an important
new window on the fundamental needs question, in the same way
that lexical or natural-language analyses have provided a new
window on the fundamental-traits question (Saucier & Goldberg,
1995). It is also worth noting that our methodology is of a mixed
idiographic-nomothetic type (Emmons, 1989). That is, we started
with participants' unique experiential memories, giving the resulting data considerable personological meaning and validity. Despite
this, we were also able to make numerical comparisons between
participants and between needs, by focusing on the nomothetic
ratings that participants made regarding the personal events they
described. Such mixed methodologies have become increasingly
useful and popular within contemporary personality psychology
(Little, 1999).
Identifying Candidate Needs
To derive a set of candidate needs for the study, we drew from
a variety of psychological theories. As a foundation we used Deci
and Ryan's self-determination theory of motivation (1985, in
press), which specifies that people want to feel effective in their
activities (competence), to feel that their activities are self-chosen
and self-endorsed (autonomy), and to feel a sense of closeness with
some others (relatedness). Of course, competence is a well-known
need, reflected in White's concept of mastery (1959), Bandura's
concept of self-efficacy (1997), and Atkinson's concept of
achievement motivation (1964). Similarly, the proposal that humans need to feel a sense of relationship with important others is
also relatively uncontroversial (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Reis &
Patrick, 1996). Although autonomy is somewhat more controversial and easily misunderstood (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Sheldon et al.,
1996), it is featured in many other theories besides Deci and
Ryan's, including Murray's (1938), Erickson's (1963), and
Roger's (1963) seminal theories of personality.
We also drew from Maslow's theory of personality (1954) and
its set of five fundamental needs: physical health, security, selfesteem, love-belongingness, and self-actualization. In brief,
Maslow proposed that people need to feel that the biological
requirements of their physical organism are satisfied, a sense of
order and predictability within their lives, a sense of personal
worthiness and importance, a sense of love and affection with
important others, and that they are moving toward an ideal world
or version of themselves.
Notably, Maslow's conception of a love or belongingness need
is essentially equivalent to Deci and Ryan's relatedness need in
that both address feelings of interpersonal connection. Thus the
two models are redundant on this score. However, we believe that
there are important differences between Deci and Ryan's autonomy and competence needs and Maslow's self-actualization and
self-esteem needs (Deci & Ryan, in press). Autonomy refers to a
quality of self-involvement in momentary behavior, whereas selfactualization refers to a sense of long-term growth; competence
refers to attaining or exceeding a standard in one's performance,
whereas self-esteem refers to a more global evaluation of the self.
Thus, we assessed these four needs separately. In sum, the two
models together suggest seven different psychological needs that
might be tested: autonomy, competence, relatedness, physical,
security, self-esteem, and self-actualization.
In addition, we consulted Epstein's cognitive-experiential selftheory (1990), which specifies four needs or functions that all
individuals must satisfy: self-esteem, relatedness, pleasure (vs.
pain), and self-concept consistency. Of course, self-esteem and
relatedness were already discussed above. Also, we view Epstein's
self-consistency need as roughly equivalent to Maslow's need for
security in that the primary function of self-consistency, according
to Epstein, is to bring a sense of stability to the individual. Thus,
Epstein's model supplies one new candidate need to our list, the
need for pleasurable stimulation, bringing the total number of
candidates to eight.
Finally, we drew from a prominent lay theory of human needs,
namely the "American dream" assumption that happiness results
when individuals acquire popularity-influence and moneyluxuries (Derber, 1979). Indeed, the ability to "win friends and
influence people" (Carnegie, 1936) has long been extolled as a
route to a prosperous and thus happy life. Despite such common
beliefs, recent work indicates that these two experiential commodities may not be so important after all, and they may in fact may
be negatively related to well-being (Carver & Baird, 1998; Kasser
& Ryan, 1993, 1996; King & Napa, 1998). Nevertheless, we
included them in order to test these recent findings in a new way
and to allow prominent cultural, as well as psychological, theories
of needs to have their say.
Notably, the above set of 10 needs (autonomy, competence,
relatedness, physical thriving, security, self-esteem, self-actualization,
pleasure-stimulation, money-luxury, and popularity-influence) also
represent many other prominent assumptions and theories within the
literature. For example, mainstream social psychology often assumes
two basic psychological needs or motives: self-enhancement and
self-consistency (Swann, 1990). These are approximately represented
in our set by self-esteem and security. The need for pleasurable
stimulation, derived from Epstein's (1990) model, encapsulates the
single most basic motive according to hedonistic philosophies.
Baumeister and Leary (1995) have argued for a different singularly
important need, belongingness, which is represented in our set as
relatedness. Terror management theory also posits a single superordinate need, for self-esteem (Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon,
1995), as does classic humanistic psychology, for self-actualization
(Rogers, 1963); both of these are included in our set of 10. Evolutionary or adaptationist perspectives on personality often postulate
inborn motives to attain material and social dominance (Buss, 1997;
Hogan, 1996), which are represented herein as money-luxury and
popularity-influence. Finally, in our choice of items for Maslow's
growth or self-actualization need, we attempted to give some representation to the fundamental need for meaning that has been proposed
by so many theorists (Baumeister, 1991; Frankl, 1997). In sum,
although we do not claim to have captured all potential psychological
needs with these 10 candidates, we believe the chosen set has considerable range and represents a variety of important theories.
Evaluating the Relative Importance of Candidate Needs
We used two basic criteria in trying to determine the most
fundamental needs. First, which candidate qualities of experience
are rated as most present or salient within peoples' "most satisfying experiences?" Presumably, those qualities of experience that
are in truth most satisfying (and perhaps actually needed by
humans) will be most strongly represented within participants'
327
WHAT IS SATISFYING ABOUT SATISFYING EVENTS?
ratings of the naturally occurring peak experiences they identify.
As discussed above, this assumption relies on a natural-language
criterion: Needs will be defined as the qualities of experience most
closely associated with participant-designated satisfying events. In
contrast, candidate needs that are not salient within satisfying
events might with some justification be eliminated from further
consideration.
As a second criterion for identifying needs, we asked, "Which
qualities of experience best predict variations in positive and
negative affect associated with the event described?" Here, we rely
on the assumption of Deci and Ryan (in press), Baumeister and
Leary (1995), and others—that satisfied needs should promote
well-being and psychological thriving in the same way that proper
fertilization promotes the growth of plants. A second and related
reason to use affect and mood variables as criteria is that they offer
a relatively value- and context-free window on psychophysical
thriving (Ryff & Singer, 1998). Presumably, all humans have the
same basic emotional systems, and arguably any person feeling
much positive mood and little negative mood is thriving.
Reis et al. (2000), Sheldon and Bettencourt (2000), Sheldon and
Elliot (1999), and Sheldon et al. (1996) all used such affect-based
indicators of thriving in their more limited studies of psychological
needs. However, the current study moves considerably beyond
these past studies, not only by sampling satisfying experiences
directly but also by examining a large set of needs derived from a
wide assortment of theories, not just the three needs derived from
Deci and Ryan's theory.
Notably, this second (affect-based) criterion supplies a more
indirect test of the importance of candidate needs, one that does not
rely on participants' explicit beliefs about the meaning of satisfying. In theory, the two criteria could yield different results (i.e., the
experiential qualities that participants rate as strongest or most
salient within satisfying events may not be the same qualities that
are most associated with the presence of positive affect and the
absence of negative affect during those events). To find convergences such that the same candidate needs emerge as most important by both criteria would nicely support those candidacies and
would also support our general approach to identifying needs.
In Study 2 we asked a U.S. sample and a South Korean sample
to describe "the most satisfying event of the last week." The
inclusion of the U.S. sample enabled us to examine the replicability of the Study 1 results, and the instructions to think of the "last
week" enabled examination of the replicability of results to a
shorter time frame. More important, this design allowed us to
examine the generalizability of effects to a collectivist culture.
Because recent cross-cultural work suggests that psychological
motives might differ substantially in collectivistic cultures
(Markus, Kitayama, & Heiman, 1996), it was important to include
such a sample to explore the potential "universality" of identified
needs. Finally, in Study 3 we examined the replicability of Study 1
and Study 2 results to a longer time frame (the whole semester)
and also examined the replicability of results when participants
reported on their most unsatisfying events, as well as their most
satisfying events.
On the basis of our own past findings (Reis et al., 2000, Sheldon
& Elliot, 1999, Sheldon et al., 1996) and self-determination theory
(Deci & Ryan, 1985), we expected that autonomy, competence,
and relatedness would all emerge as important needs (Deci &
Ryan, in press). That is, they should have among the highest mean
scores in peoples' ratings of satisfying events, and they should all
be significantly and uniquely associated with event-related affect.
On the basis of Deci and Ryan's further claim that these three
needs are universal and important within every sphere of life, we
expected to find these patterns within every time frame examined,
and also within every culture examined. Notably, our view predicts
only that this set of needs should emerge at or near the top, and it
does not make predictions about the ordering of needs within that
set; thus, the relative importance of autonomy, competence, and
relatedness may well vary among contexts, time frames, and
cultures. Finally, on the basis of Kasser and Ryan's prior (1993,
1996) findings, we also expected that popularity-influence and
money-luxury would be least important. No other a priori predictions were ventured.
Study 1
Method
Overview of Studies and Hypotheses
Participants and Procedure
Study 1 had three goals. First, we tested our item set for
measuring the 10 candidate needs. Second, we compared the
relative salience of the 10 qualities of experience within the "most
satisfying event of the past month" described by participants and
compared the 10 needs as predictors of event-related positive and
negative affect. Third, we examined a trait measure of the strength
of each of the 10 needs, to see whether individual differences in
need strengths moderate the effect of the corresponding need
variables on positive and negative affect. This latter hypothesis is
suggested by "matching" theories of satisfaction, in which experiences are most rewarding when they match the preferences of the
experiencer (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 1991; Oishi, Diener, Suh,
& Lucas, 1999). Finding no support for a matching hypothesis
would tend to support a universalist perspective, which assumes
that "true" needs are those that influence every person's wellbeing, regardless of the person's stated preferences (Deci & Ryan,
in press).
Participants were 322 students in introductory psychology at the University of Missouri who participated in the research to satisfy an experimental participation requirement (7 participants were later excluded from
the analysis because they did not follow instructions). Participants attended
group sessions run by a trained research assistant in which they completed
a single questionnaire packet containing all study materials.
Measures
Most satisfying event. At the beginning of the questionnaire, participants read the following:
Now, we ask you to consider the past month of your life. Think back
to the important occurrences of this period of time. What we want you
to do is bring to mind the single most personally satisfying event that
you experienced during the last month (emphasis in the original). We
are being vague about the definition of "satisfying event" on purpose,
328
Table 1
Study 1: Need-Satisfaction Items With Factor Loadings Greater Than .45
Factor
Item (responses to "During this event I felt. . .")
1. Autonomy
That my choices were based on my true interests and values.
Free to do things my own way.
That my choices expressed my "true self."
2. Competence
That I was successfully completing difficult tasks and projects.
That I was taking on and mastering hard challenges.
Very capable in what I did.
3. Relatedness
A sense of contact with people who care for me, and whom I care for.
Close and connected with other people who are important to me.
A strong sense of intimacy with the people I spent time with.
4. Self-actualization-meaning
That I was "becoming who I really am."
A sense of deeper purpose in life.
A deeper understanding of myself and my place in the universe.
5. Physical thriving
That I got enough exercise and was in excellent physical condition.
That my body was getting just what it needed.
A strong sense of physical well-being.
6. Pleasure-stimulation
That I was experiencing new sensations and activities.
Intense physical pleasure and enjoyment.
That I had found new sources and types of stimulation for myself.
7. Money-luxury
Able to buy most of the things I want.
That I had nice things and possessions.
That I got plenty of money.
8. Security
That my life was structured and predictable.
Glad that I have a comfortable set of routines and habits.
Safe from threats and uncertainties.
9. Self-esteem
That I had many positive qualities.
Quite satisfied with who I am.
A strong sense of self-respect.
10. Popularity-influence
That I was a person whose advice others seek out and follow.
That I strongly influenced others' beliefs and behavior.
That I had strong impact on what other people did.
because we want you to use your own definition. Think of "satisfying"
in whatever way makes sense to you. Take a couple minutes to be sure
to come up with a very impactful experience.
The event descriptions that were provided by participants in response to
these instructions were quite diverse, ranging from achievement to familial,
to sexual, to spiritual, and to many other domains.'
Participants were next asked to make ratings about the event, concerning
"a variety of complex thoughts and feelings." Hoping to encourage participants to differentiate carefully between different types of positive
feelings, we asked them to "be as discriminating as you can in making
these ratings." Participants then responded to 30 descriptive statements, 3
for each of the 10 postulated needs, using a 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much)
scale. All descriptions began with the same stem: "During this event I
f e l t . . . " Salience scores were computed for each of the 10 candidate needs
by averaging the 3 relevant items. The specific item-set, which was derived
from theoretical analysis and pilot work, is presented in Table 1.
Participants also rated the extent to which they felt each of 20 different
moods during the event, using the same scale. Specifically, they completed
the Positive Affect/Negative Affect scale (PANAS) regarding the event
(Watson, Tellegen, & Clark, 1988). The PANAS contains mood adjectives
.66
.64
.72
.86
.82
.49
.80
.85
.77
.78
.76
.81
.69
.73
.66
.57
.78
.61
.77
.69
.81
.69
.70
.48
.78
.77
.80
.58
.79
.82
such as scared, hostile, inspired, and proud. Positive and negative affect
scores were computed by averaging the appropriate ratings and were
treated as outcome variables. In addition, an affect-balance score was
computed by subtracting the negative affect score from the positive affect
score (Bradburn, 1969). This score served as a third, summary outcome
variable.
Assessing individual differences in need preferences. In an attempt to
assess individual differences in the strengths of the 10 needs, we used
the pairwise comparison technique of Oishi, Schimmack, Diener, and
Suh (1998). In their research, definitions of each of 10 values were
presented to participants, who then indicated their preferences within
every possible pairing of values. The advantage of this comparison
method is that the influence of response sets is minimized, because the
method focuses on the relative strength of responses compared with
1
Although we attempted to develop content-coding schemes for categorizing the events into specific types, the task proved too difficult given
that many events touched on multiple possible content categories or were
ambiguous with respect to potential coding categories.
329
other responses made by the subject, excluding mean levels of responding. In the current work, we supplied participants with definitions of
each of our 10 candidate needs (these definitions can be found
in the Appendix a) and then asked them to rate their relative preference
within each possible pairing, using a scale of —2 {first is much more
important) to 0 (each is equally important) to +2 (second is much
more important). Participants made 45 ratings altogether, and
we computed 10 different need-strength variables by summing the
level of preference expressed for each candidate need as compared with
the other 9 candidates (see Oishi et al., 1998, for further scoring
details). The measure was given prior to the "most satisfying event"
measures.
Results
Factor Analysis
We first conducted a principal-components analysis of the 30
event-related need-satisfaction variables, using a varimax rotation.
Table 1 presents the resulting solution, including all factor loadings of .45 or greater.2 Only 9 factors with eigenvalues of 1.0 or
greater emerged, rather than the expected 10. Inspection of the
loadings revealed that the three pleasure-stimulation items and the
three physical thriving items all loaded on the same factor (see
Table 1). Despite their intercorrelation, we computed a separate
score for these two candidate needs on the basis of our a priori
theoretical model.3
Substantive
Analyses
Mean differences in the salience of candidate needs. Table 2
presents the means for each of the 10 needs, in rank order.
Differences between these means were tested using pairedsample t tests. Given the number of tests performed, a significance level of .01 was adopted for these analyses. As can be
seen, self-esteem, relatedness, and autonomy emerged in a
three-way tie at the top of the list, suggesting that these are the
most salient experiential elements of "satisfying experiences."
Competence was close behind, in second position, and thus our
hypothesis based on self-determination theory—that autonomy,
competence, and relatedness would be among the most important experiential characteristics—received good support.
Pleasure-stimulation was in the third position, consistent with
Epstein's (1990) assumptions and with hedonic philosophy
Table 2
Study 1: Mean Salience of Each Candidate Need Within
Participants' Most Satisfying Experiences of the Last Month
Candidate need
M
SD
Self-esteem
Relatedness
Autonomy
Competence
Pleasure-stimulation
Physical thriving
Self-actualization-meaning
Security
Popularity-influence
Money-luxury
4.08a
3.99a
3.98a
3.74b
3.53C
3.25d
3.23d
3.03e
2.89e
2.37f
0.90
1.13
0.87
0.98
1.08
1.13
1.13
0.90
1.02
1.08
Note. Means not sharing subscripts are significantly different from each
other a t p £ .01. Means could range from 1.00 to 5.00.
Table 3
Study 1: Correlations of Candidate Needs
With Event-Related Affect
Candidate need
Self-esteem
Autonomy
Competence
Relatedness
Physical thriving
Security
Money-luxury
Positive
affect
Negative
affect
Affect
balance
.43**
.31**
.39**
.21**
.32**
.34**
.24**
.21**
.14**
-.27**
-.24**
-.05
-.16**
-.02
-.02
.00
-.01
.13*
.21**
.43**
.34**
.26**
.23**
.20**
.20**
.13*
.12*
-.01
-.12*
.05
*p < .05. **p < .01.
more generally. Physical thriving and self-actualizationmeaning emerged in the fourth position, accounting for the third
and fourth of Maslow's five posited needs. The significant
mean difference between physical thriving and pleasurestimulation is noteworthy because, as presented above, the
items from these two needs all loaded on the same factor; here,
however, the two needs are distinguishable. Security was in the
next position, accounting for the final needs in both Maslow's
(fivefold) and Epstein's (fourfold) postulated sets. Popularityinfluence and money-luxury brought up the rear, supporting our
hypothesis, based on self-determination theory, that these two
aspects of the "American dream" may not be so desirable after
all (Kasser & Ryan, 1993, 1996).
Associations of need satisfaction with event-related affect. Table 3 presents the correlations of each of the 10 satisfaction scores
with event-related positive affect and negative affect, and also with
the composite affect-balance score. As can be seen, the very same
needs that emerged as most important by the first criterion also
emerged as paramount by this second criterion. Specifically, the
four most strongly endorsed needs—self-esteem, autonomy, competence, and relatedness—were also found to be most strongly
associated with high-positive and low-negative emotion. Furthermore, pleasure-stimulation, physical health, self-actualizationmeaning, and security-control—the middle four needs in Table 1—were less strongly associated with high-positive and
low-negative affect. Finally, popularity-influence and moneyluxury—the two most weakly endorsed experiences in Table
1—were also unrelated or even negatively related to affect balance, consistent with our hypotheses and the "dark side of the
American dream" effects described by Kasser and Ryan (1993,
1996).
2
We have not presented cross-loadings in this table, in order to simplify
the presentation. For the record, one item cross-loaded more than .40 on an
unintended scale (i.e., "I felt very capable in what I did," a competence
item, cross-loaded .44 on self-esteem). Ten items cross-loaded more than
.30 on unintended scales, and the remaining cross-loadings were all less
than .30.
3
Notably, our approach does not require that all candidate needs suggested by existing theories emerge as empirically distinct; obviously,
different theories may sometimes converge on the same basic need from
different conceptual angles.
330
Regression comparisons. To test our specific hypotheses concerning the importance of autonomy, competence, and relatedness,
we conducted a series of simultaneous regressions. In these analyses, each of the event-related affect variables was regressed in
turn on these three candidate needs. All three of the needs postulated by self-determination theory significantly predicted positive
affect (autonomy, /3 = .16; competence, /3 = .37; relatedness, fi =
.17; all p& < .01). Only autonomy predicted negative affect (/3 =
— .21, p < .01). Thus, as in past work, need satisfaction appears to
be more important for producing positive affect than for reducing
negative affect (Sheldon & Bettencourt, 2000; Sheldon et al,
1996). Most important, as hypothesized, all three needs postulated
by self-determination theory predicted the aggregate affectbalance variable (autonomy, /3 = .23, p < .01; competence, j3 =
.21, p < .01; relatedness, /3 = .14, p < .05).
Next, we conducted an analysis in which all 10 candidate needs
were entered simultaneously as predictors of the affect-balance
variable. This most stringent test removes all common variance
shared by the 10 candidates in order to see which, if any, contribute unique variance in the prediction of positive affective tone. In
this analysis, Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness all
emerged as significant (j3s = .17, .12, and .12, respectively, ps <
.05). In addition, Self-Esteem contributed unique predictive variance (P = .28, p < .01). It is interesting that money-luxury
emerged as a negative predictor in this analysis Q3 = — .17, p <
.01), again supporting the "dark side" hypothesis. No other need
candidates were significant in this analysis.
Individual differences in need preference as a moderator variable. Finally, we looked at the moderating influence of each of
the individual-difference measures of need strength on the eventrelated need salience to event-related affect relations. As discussed
above, a "matching" hypothesis would predict that those individuals who report that they strongly prefer a particular experience
should benefit the most, in terms of resultant affective tone, from
experiences of that type. To test this, we computed 10 product
terms by multiplying each of the centered need-preference variables by the corresponding event-related satisfaction score (Aiken
& West, 1991). We then conducted a regression analysis using the
affect-balance score as the dependent measure. As above, all 10
satisfaction scores were entered at the first step, then the 10
need-preference scores were entered at the second step, and finally
the 10 product terms were entered at the third step.
None of the need-preference variables was significant at the
second step. At the third step, only one significant interaction
effect emerged, for self-actualization-meaning (p < .02). The
coefficient was positive, indicating that feelings of growth and
meaningfulness are more strongly associated with positive eventrelated affect when the person especially values such feelings.
However, the set of 10 product terms as a whole did not add
significant predictive variance to the equation (Ai?2 = .03, p =
.21). Thus, these results do not provide much support for the
matching hypothesis.
clearly among the items representing the 10 candidate needs. More
important, strong convergence was observed between our two
distinct criteria for identifying needs. That is, the same candidate
needs that were rated as strongly present in satisfying experiences
were also strongly positively correlated with pleasure in that
experience. This convergence suggests that participants really do
know "what's satisfying about satisfying events."
Study 1 also provided encouraging support for our hypotheses
based on self-determination theory, concerning which needs are
most fundamental. First, the trio of autonomy, competence, and
relatedness emerged within the top four in terms of salience. In
other words, it appears that when people are asked to bring to mind
deeply satisfying experiences, they think of experiences in which
they felt strongly autonomous, competent, or related to others.
Second, each of the three needs postulated by self-determination
theory predicted independent variance in event-related affect, and
all three continued to do so even when the other seven needs were
in the equation. Our final hypothesis based on self-determination
theory also received support in Study 1, that popularity-influence
and money-luxury are least important and may even be negative
for well-being (Kasser & Ryan, 1993, 1996). Of interest is that
self-esteem also emerged as an important need by our criteria,
consistent with some contemporary theories of needs (i.e., Greenberg et al., 1995). This finding was not predicted by selfdetermination theory.
Study 1 had two important limitations. First, it addressed only
satisfaction within a single time frame (i.e., "events within the last
month"). In fact, time frame can have an important influence on
mood and affective reports (Suh, Diener, & Fujita, 1996), as
different types of memory processes may be involved in immediate versus more long-term recall (Thomas & Diener, 1990). Thus,
to better establish the strength and differential influence of identified needs, it was necessary to replicate the effects using a
different time frame. A second weakness of Study 1 is that participants came from a single (highly individualistic) culture, the
United States. To begin to establish cross-cultural replicability for
the identified needs, it was necessary to reproduce the effects
within a more collectivist culture. In Study 2 we addressed both of
these issues.
Study 2
Method
Two samples were used for Study 2. The U.S. sample consisted of 152
students in introductory psychology at the University of Missouri who
participated in the research to satisfy an experimental participation requirement. The South Korean sample consisted of 200 students in introductory
psychology at Hanyang University in South Korea, who also participated
to satisfy an experimental requirement. Both universities are large, with
more than 15,000 students. Participants attended group sessions run by
trained research assistants in which they completed a questionnaire packet
containing all experimental materials.
Discussion
The results from Study 1 provide encouraging support for our
method of approaching questions concerning fundamental psychological needs. With the exception of the pleasure-stimulation and
physical thriving needs, participants were able to discriminate
Translation
The English questionnaire was translated into Korean by Youngmee
Kim, a native Korean. A back-translation was then accomplished by a
second Korean speaker. Working from the back-translation, Kennon M.
Sheldon and Youngmee Kim collaborated to create a final South Korean
version of the questionnaire.
Measures
Instructions for identifying a "most satisfying event" were identical to
those in Study 1, with one exception: All participants were asked to
consider the past week, rather than the past month, of their lives. The
resulting event descriptions again showed a great deal of diversity.
Participants next responded to the same 30 descriptive statements used
in Study 1, using the same stem: "During this event I f e l t . . . " Salience
scores were computed for each of the 10 candidate needs by averaging
the 3 relevant items. Participants also rated the extent to which they felt
the 20 PANAS moods during the event, using a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5
(very much). Positive and negative affect scores were computed by averaging the appropriate ratings, and an affect-balance variable was computed
by subtracting the negative from the positive affect score.
Participants in Study 2 also indicated their family income status on a
scale ranging from 1 = much below to 5 = much above their country's
median income. (Of course, the monetary amounts associated with scale
points differed in the two cultures.) Family income was used as a control
variable in regression analyses in an attempt to partial out any effects of
socioeconomic status.
Results
Mean Differences in the Salience of Candidate Needs
Table 4 presents means and standard deviations for each candidate need separately for each sample. Of interest is that salience
scores in general were lower in these two samples than in Study 1,
probably because the events referred only to the past week and not
the past month. In terms of salience ratings for the candidate needs,
results for the U.S. sample were quite similar to those found in
Study 1. Specifically, autonomy, competence, and relatedness
again emerged within the top four needs, along with self-esteem.
As in Study 1, all four of these candidate needs were more strongly
endorsed than those in a middle group, which included pleasure-
Table 4
Participants' Most Satisfying Experiences
of the Last Week, by Sample
U.S. sample
stimulation, self-actualization-meaning, and physical thriving.
Notably, popularity-influence also fell in this middle group, rather
than being in the lowest group, as in Study 1. Once again, however, money-luxury appeared at the very bottom of the list.
In the South Korean sample, as in the two U.S. samples, autonomy, competence, and relatedness were all among the top needs.
Thus, our primary hypotheses again received good support. In
addition, self-esteem emerged near the top, as did pleasurestimulation. Notably, however, the exact ordering of these needs
was somewhat different within the South Korean sample. As can
be seen, relatedness topped the list, perhaps consistent with the
collectivism that characterizes South Korean culture (Markus et
al., 1996). Self-esteem occupied the second position, seemingly at
odds with recent findings that self-esteem and self-enhancement
are not as important within Asian cultures (Heine & Lehman,
1997; Kitayama, Markus, & Lieberman, 1995). Autonomy, competence, and pleasure-stimulation occupied the third position.
Self-actualization-meaning, security, and popularity-influence occupied the fourth position, forming a middle group very similar to
those found in the U.S. samples. Physical thriving occupied the
fifth position, and as in the U.S. samples, money-luxury was last
on the list.
Table 4 also contains the results of 10 matched group t tests that
compared the U.S. and South Korean means. As can be seen,
despite the large sample sizes and potential translation difficulties,
the two samples did not differ on the extent to which 5 of the 10
candidate experiences accompanied "satisfying events," namely
autonomy, competence, physical thriving, self-actualizationmeaning, and popularity-influence. However, South Koreans did
report a greater sense of relatedness and also of security, pleasure
or stimulation, and money or luxuries in their satisfying events,
compared with the U.S. sample. In addition, South Koreans reported a relatively weaker sense of self-esteem during the event,
compared with the U.S. sample. Thus, in relation to U.S. participants at least, recent findings regarding the weaker salience of
self-esteem in Asian cultures were confirmed (Kitayama et al.,
1995).
Associations of Need Satisfaction With
Event-Related Affect
South Korean
sample
Candidate need
M
SD
hi
SD
t (350)
Self-esteem
Relatedness
Autonomy
Competence
Physical thriving
Security
Money-luxury
3.65a
3.21b
3.12b
2.98b
2.60c
2.49C
2.54C
2.46C
2.5Oc
2.14d
1.06
1.42
1.18
1.14
1.08
1.16
1.13
1.02
1.02
1.05
3.23b
3.65a
3.01c
2.9 l c
2.95C
2.42e
2.69d
2.70d
2.71d
2.35e
0.91
1.07
0.95
1.09
0.90
1.04
1.02
0.88
0.96
0.91
4.01**
3.31**
1.03
0.61
3.05**
0.54
1.30
2.37*
1.93
2.02*
Note. Means within columns not sharing subscripts are significantly different from each other a t p s .01. The fifth column tests the differences
between the means of the two samples.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
331
Table 5 contains the correlations of each of the candidate needs
with event-related positive affect, negative affect, and affect balance, separately by sample. Results for the U.S. sample were very
consistent with the results of Study 1 in that autonomy, competence, relatedness, and self-esteem were most strongly associated
with positive affect and affect balance. Furthermore, autonomy
and relatedness were again negatively associated with negative
affect. Pleasure-stimulation, physical thriving, self-actualizationmeaning, popularity-influence, and security were also (more
weakly) associated with positive affective tone. Diverging from
Study 1, in this sample the negative association between moneyluxury and affect balance did not reach significance.
The associations of the need-satisfaction variables with positive
affect were in general stronger within the South Korean sample; in
fact, every correlation was significant, for both positive affect and
for the aggregate affect-balance variable. Two findings regarding
negative affect are noteworthy: Experiences of competence and
332
Table 5
Study 2: Correlations of Candidate Needs With Event-Related Affect, by Sample
South Korean sample
U.S. sample
Candidate need
Positive
affect
Negative
affect
Affect
balance
Positive
affect
Negative
affect
Affect
balance
Self-esteem
Autonomy
Competence
Relatedness
Physical thriving
Security
Money-luxury
.36**
.49**
.39**
.24**
.27**
.16
.23**
.32**
.24**
.00
-.11
-.21**
-.03
-.22**
.00
.02
.02
-.14
.01
.11
.29**
.43**
.32**
.29**
.16*
.08
.13
.28**
.14t
-.07
.57**
.51**
.59**
.29**
.48**
.38**
.47**
.42**
.36**
.24**
-.14 +
-.13**
.16**
-.22*
-.03
-.10
.12+
-.23**
-.05
.00
.51**
.46**
.31**
.37**
.36**
.35**
.25**
.48**
.30**
.17*
*p < .05. **p < .01. *p < .10 (marginally significant).
experiences of self-actualization-meaning were both positively
predictive of negative affect.
To test our specific hypotheses concerning the importance of
autonomy, competence, and relatedness, the three event-related
affect variables were simultaneously regressed on these three candidate needs, separately for each sample. In the U.S. sample, all
three quantities accounted for significant variance in positive affect (competence, /3 = .44; autonomy, /3 = .30; relatedness, j3 =
.15; all ps £ .05). This was also the case in the South Korean
sample (competence, /3 = .46; autonomy, /3 = .25; relatedness,
j3 = .17; all ps < .05). No significant effects were observed on
negative affect in the U.S. sample, whereas in the South Korean
sample competence was positively associated with negative affect
(/3 = .26, p < .01), whereas autonomy and relatedness were
negatively associated with negative affect (/3 = —.19 and —.20,
both ps < .01). Finally, in the U.S. sample, autonomy, competence, and relatedness independently predicted the aggregate
affective-balance variable (/3s = .26, .28, ps < .01, and /3 = .19,
p < .05, respectively). Similarly, in the South Korean sample, all
three experiences postulated as needs by self-determination theory
predicted affect balance (/3s = .33, .14, and .27, respectively; ps <
.01, .05, and .01, respectively).
Next, we conducted analyses in which all 10 candidate needs
were entered simultaneously as predictors of the aggregate affectbalance variable, separately for each sample. Again, this most
stringent test removes all variance shared by the 10 candidates to
see which, if any, contribute unique variance in the prediction of
affective tone. In the U.S. sample, autonomy, competence, and
relatedness all emerged as significant (/3s = .29, .25, and .21; all
ps < .05), and no other candidate needs contributed significant
predictive variance. In the South Korean sample, autonomy and
relatedness emerged as significant (j6s = .26 and .20, respectively;
both ps < .01), whereas competence evidenced a nonsignificant
trend (/S = .10, p = .18). In addition, self-esteem (|3 = .23, p <
.01) and security (/3 = .25, p < .01) contributed significant
positive variance within the latter equation, and money-luxury
(/3 = —.22, p < .01) was a negative predictor.
We then tested for significant interactions between culture and
the 10 candidate needs, in relation to the affect-balance variable.
Specifically, we conducted a hierarchical regression using the
entire sample of 352 participants, in which all 10 (centered) need
candidates were entered at Step 1, followed by a dummy variable
at Step 2 indicating to which sample the participant belonged (U.S.
or South Korean), followed by a set of 10 product terms at Step 3,
which represented the interaction of culture with each of the 10
need candidates. At Step 1, autonomy, competence, and relatedness were all significant (/3s = .27, .17, and .15, respectively; all
ps < .01). In addition, self-esteem and security manifested positive
effects (/8s = .18 and .15, bothps < .01), and money-luxury had
a negative effect (j8 = —.15, p < .01). At Step 2 the dummy
variable representing the subsample was significant (f! = —.14,
p < .05), indicating that the South Koreans were somewhat lower
on event-related affect balance (M = 1.63 vs. M = 1.32; although
South Koreans were no different in event-related negative affect,
they were much lower in positive affect). At Step 3, none of the 10
interaction product terms were significant; furthermore, the set as
a whole did not contribute significant variance to the equation
(AR2 = .02, p = .34), suggesting that the influence of these 10
qualities of experience on affect balance did not vary as a function
of participants' cultural membership.
A final set of analyses examined the family-income variable.
Americans and South Koreans did not differ on this variable
(M = 2.95 vs. M = 2.89, respectively, ns). For the whole sample,
family income was associated with only 1 of the 10 need-salience
variables, namely money-luxury (r = .20, p < .01). Of interest is
that this association was far stronger in the South Korean sample
(r = .33, p < .01) than in the U.S. sample (r = .07, ns), indicating
that wealthier South Korean students perceive money or luxury to
be quite salient in very satisfying events, whereas wealthier American students do not. Entering family income as a control variable
did not substantially alter any of the regression results above,
however.
Discussion
The results for the U.S. sample in Study 2 replicated the results
for Study 1, but for a shorter time frame (i.e., most satisfying event
of the last week instead of the last month). In terms of our first
criterion for identifying needs, based on mean levels of endorsement, autonomy, competence, and relatedness again emerged at
333
the top of the list, as did self-esteem. Money-luxury was again at
the bottom of the list, and the other candidates again fell in the
middle. This same general ordering of needs was again found
using our second criterion for identifying needs, namely association with event-related affect. Specifically, autonomy, competence, relatedness, and self-esteem were all unique predictors of
positive affective tone, whereas money-luxury was again associated with negative affect.
Perhaps the most important finding of Study 2 was the emergence of similar results within the South Korean sample. Just as in
the two U.S. samples, autonomy, competence, relatedness, and
self-esteem emerged as the most important set, both in terms of
mean differences and association with event-related affect. The
findings regarding autonomy are especially noteworthy given recent challenges to self-determination theory's assumption that
autonomy or perceived choice is a universal need (Iyengar &
Lepper, 1999; Markus et al., 1996). It appears, here, that autonomy
is equally important in the U.S. and South Korea, at least for
characterizing what people consider satisfying and for predicting
positive affect-balance.
Despite the strong convergences across the U.S. and South
Korean samples, there were some meaningful differences. Feelings
of relatedness were especially salient within South Koreans' "most
satisfying experiences," consistent with South Korea's status as a
collectivist culture and with the findings of Kwan, Bond, and
Singelis regarding feelings of harmony (1997). Furthermore, feelings of self-esteem were less salient in Korea compared with the
U.S., consistent with other recent work on the reduced importance
of self-esteem in collectivist cultures (Kitayama et al., 1995).
Notably, however, self-esteem still came in second within the
South Korean hierarchy, suggesting that it does have importance.
In sum, then, although the same set of needs emerged at the top in
both samples, the ordering of needs within this set varied considerably. This suggests that the universalist and the cultural constructivist positions may both be correct. That is, it may be that
certain needs are universal to humans in general, but the relative
salience that people place on them depends on the extent to which
their cultures encourage and support those needs.
Study 3
We next conducted a third study to extend the research presented thus far. First, we examined the "most satisfying event of
the semester" to ensure generalizability of the effects to an even
longer time frame. In fact, it is not difficult to think of reasons why
different patterns might emerge when participants reflect back on
long versus short periods of time. For example, self-actualizationmeaning might be expected to be most salient within a more global
frame of reference, whereas pleasure-stimulation might be most
salient when a person considers short-term satisfactions. Thus, to
clearly replicate Study 1 and 2 results in this much longer time
period would help establish that the determinants of satisfaction do
not vary according to the temporal scale of the event the person
describes.
A second extension of Study 3 was to approach the question of
fundamental needs from the opposite direction, namely by asking
participants to describe the most unsatisfying event they experienced during the semester and then rate what was missing from the
experience. We did this because psychological needs can be con-
sidered from a deficit perspective (i.e., as qualities that, if lacking,
may lead to ill-being) as well as from an enhancement perspective
(i.e., as qualities that, if present, may lead to well-being; Maslow,
1954). Conceptually, the absence of a positive quality may be quite
different from, and have different effects than, the presence of a
negative quality (Higgins, 1999). Also, peoples' construals of the
word satisfaction might differ substantially when they consider
dissatisfaction rather than satisfaction. Thus, to find that the same
candidate needs emerge as important within both approaches
would lend additional support for those candidacies.
Method
Participants were 233 students in a psychology course at the University
of Missouri who participated in the research for extra credit points. The
measures were contained within a single questionnaire packet, which was
administered in a group session near the end of the semester. Participants
first identified a "most satisfying event" and then rated it in terms of both
affect and candidate needs, then they identified and rated a "most unsatisfying event."
Measures
Most satisfying event. Instructions for identifying a "most satisfying
event" were identical to those in Studies 1 and 2, with one exception: All
participants were asked to "consider the entire semester" as they identified
a particularly salient event.
Participants rated the event in terms of the same 30 descriptive statements used in Studies 1 and 2, using the same stem: "During this event I
f e l t . . . " Need-satisfaction scores were computed for each of the 10
candidate needs by averaging the three relevant items. Participants also
rated the extent to which they felt the 20 PANAS moods during the event,
using a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Positive and negative affect
scores were computed by averaging the appropriate ratings, and an affectbalance variable was computed by subtracting the score for negative affect
from the score for positive affect.
To illustrate what types of events were designated as the "most satisfying of the semester," we identified the events with the highest associated
affect-balance scores. Two events within the sample emerged by this
criterion, namely "Going on a retreat with my friends at church. We did a
service event and cleaned up a summer camp," and "When I got the
summer job of my dreams." (both events reported verbatim).
Most unsatisfying event. Participants were next asked the following:
bring to mind the single most unsatisfying event that you experienced
in the entire semester. That is, what is the least rewarding thing that
happened to you during winter semester, 2000? Please think of unsatisfying in whatever way makes sense to you.
After writing their description, participants were asked "What was missing
from this event, that is, why was it unsatisfying?" The same 30 descriptive
statements were used that were used in Studies 1 and 2, with the wording
altered so that they became negatives. For example, "During the event I felt
that my choices were based on my true interests and values" became
"During the event I felt that my choices were not based on my true interests
and values." The stem "this event was unsatisfying because . . . " prefaced
all items, and a scale of 1 (not at all the reason) to 5 (very much the reason)
was given. Need-deficiency scores were later computed for each of the 10
candidate needs by averaging the three relevant items. Participants also
rated the extent to which they felt the 20 PANAS moods during the event,
using a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Positive and negative affect
scores were computed by averaging the appropriate ratings, and an affect-
334
balance variable was computed by subtracting the score for the negative
affect from the score for positive affect.
To illustrate what types of events were designated as the "least satisfying
of the semester," we identified the events with the lowest associated
affect-balance scores. Two events emerged by this criterion, namely
"Broke up with a girlfriend of 2 years, 8 months," and "Getting jumped
by 10 Mexicans while on spring break in Cancun."
predictors supplied significant variance (/3s = .25, .16, and .23,
respectively; all ps S .01). We then entered the remaining seven
needs. In this most stringent analysis, autonomy was significant
and relatedness was marginally significant (/3s = .17 and .12),
whereas competence was not significant (/3 = .00). Self-esteem
(|8 = .38, p < .01) and money-luxury (/3 = -.14, p < .05) were
also significant in this analysis.
Results
Most Unsatisfying Event of the Semester
Most Satisfying Event of the Semester
Mean differences in the salience of candidate needs. Table 6
presents the mean salience of the 10 candidate needs within
participants' "most satisfying event of the semester." These data
essentially replicate the earlier results, for this longer time frame.
As in Study 2, self-esteem was the most salient characteristic, and
autonomy, competence, and relatedness were again in a threeway tie in the second position. Pleasure-stimulation and selfactualization-meaning occupied the third position. Security,
popularity-influence, and physical thriving occupied the fourth
position, and once again, money-luxury was last on the list.
Associations of need satisfaction with event-related affect. Table 7 contains the correlations of each of the candidate needs with
event-related positive affect, negative affect, and affect balance.
As can be seen, all 10 needs correlated positively with positive
affect, whereas only some of the needs were significantly related
to low negative affect. All 10 needs were significantly associated
with aggregate affect balance.
Regression comparisons. We next conducted regression comparisons, as in Studies 1 and 2, to test for unique variances. First,
positive affect was regressed simultaneously on autonomy, competence, and relatedness. All three predictors were significant at
the .01 level (|3s = .23, .41, and .27, respectively). Next, negative
affect was regressed on these three variables. Only autonomy was
significant ((3 = — .16, p < .05). Finally, affect balance was
regressed on autonomy, competence, and relatedness. All three
Table 6
Participants' Most Satisfying and Most Unsatisfying
Experiences of the Semester
Presence within
the most
satisfying
event
Absence within
the most
unsatisfying
event
Candidate need
M
SD
M
SD
Self-esteem
Autonomy
Competence
Relatedness
Security
Physical thriving
vioney-luxury
3.97a
3.77b
3.73b
3.66b
3.38C
3.24C
3.00d
2.93d
2-91d
2.24e
1.00
1.01
1.15
1.31
1.13
1.23
1.07
1.12
1.24
1.21
2.66b
2.86ab
3.02a
2.63b
2.40c
2.63 b
2.77b
2.37C
2.34C
1.77d
1.27
.11
.23
.32
.05
.15
.12
.16
.23
.01
Note. Means within columns not sharing subscripts are significantly different from each other at p < .01.
Mean differences in need deprivation scores. Table 6 also
presents the mean ratings for each of the 10 candidate needs within
the "most unsatisfying" event. Again, we construe these as deprivation scores, because they represent participants' views of what
was missing in the unsatisfying experience. As can be seen, the
primary reason why the listed events were unsatisfying, according
to these ratings, was that experiences of competence were missing.
In addition, the other two needs specified by self-determination
theory, autonomy and relatedness, were also rated as strongly
lacking within unsatisfying experiences. Finally, self-esteem was
also rated as strongly absent. In short, this clustering of means is
quite consistent with our hypotheses and with earlier findings.
However, one interesting difference from earlier studies did
emerge: A fifth candidate need, security, was also perceived as
strongly lacking within the unsatisfying events. Finally, lack of
pleasure-stimulation, popularity-influence, self-actualizationmeaning, and physical thriving were deemed to be less responsible
for the event's unsatisfying nature, and lack of money-luxury was
deemed to be least responsible.
Associations of need deprivation with event-related affect. Table 7 presents the correlations between deprivation scores and
event-related affect. As can be seen, only competence and selfesteem, in their absence, were associated with low positive affect.
The general lack of associations between dissatisfaction and positive affect parallels the earlier studies, in which few associations
were found between satisfaction and negative affect.
In contrast, all 10 of the deprivation scores were correlated with
event-related negative affect. The correlation between missing
security and event-related negative affect was of the greatest
magnitude (r = .50, p < .01), followed by missing relatedness and
missing self-actualization-meaning (rs = .39 and .35, respectively). All but two of the candidates, popularity-influence and
money-luxury, were associated with the compound affect-balance
variable. That is, when participants perceived autonomy, competence, relatedness, self-esteem, pleasure-stimulation, physical
thriving, self-actualization-meaning, or security as strongly missing within an unsatisfying event, they also reported a higher
predominance of negative compared with positive affect within
that event.
Regression comparisons. As in the other studies, positive affect was first regressed on autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
Only missing competence was significant in this analysis (/3 =
— .20, p < .01). Next, negative affect was regressed on these three
variables. Once again, only competence was significant (/3 = .24,
p < .01). Finally, and most importantly, the affect-balance variable
was regressed on autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Competence was significant in this analysis (/3 = —.30, p < .01), and
relatedness was marginally significant (jS = -.11); autonomy was
nonsignificant. We then entered the remaining seven needs into the
335
Table 7
Study 3: Correlations of Candidate Needs With Event-Related Affect, Separately
for Satisfying and Unsatisfying Events
Presence within the
most satisfying event
Candidate need
Self-esteem
Autonomy
Competence
Relatedness
Physical thriving
Security
Money—luxury
Absence within the
most unsatisfying event
Positive
affect
Negative
affect
Affect
balance
Positive
affect
Negative
affect
Affect
balance
57**
.46**
.46**
.33**
.40**
.36**
.32**
.33**
.43**
.18**
-.28**
-.18*
.07
-.19**
-.14*
-.08
-.03
-.15*
-.13*
-.03
.52**
.39**
.22**
.32**
.33**
.27**
.21**
.29**
.34**
.12
-.13*
-.03
-.19*
-.05
-.02
-.05
-.08
-.02
.06
.10
.39**
.19**
.25**
.13*
.14*
.23**
.35**
.50**
.23**
.23**
-.36**
-.16**
-.31**
-.13*
-.14*
-.19**
-.30**
-.37**
-.12
-.10
*p < .05. **/><.01.
equation. In this most stringent analysis, only competence (J3 =
-.22, p < .01), security (/3 = - . 2 6 , p < .05), and self-esteem
(/3 = —.18, p < .01) were significant. Thus, it appears that the
absence of competence, self-esteem, and security within an unsatisfying event has the greatest impact on the low-positive and
high-negative affect associated with that event.
emerged as important by both criteria. Finally, security emerged
for the first time as a potentially important need, specifically, in
association with "most unsatisfying" events.
General Discussion
Summarizing the Results
Discussion
In the first part of Study 3, the basic pattern of findings from
Studies 1 and 2 was replicated for a longer time frame. Specifically, self-determination theory's three proposed needs again
emerged as important determinants of satisfaction by the "salience" criterion. In addition, all three emerged as important by the
"affect" criterion (although competence became nonsignificant in
the most stringent simultaneous analysis). Furthermore, selfesteem again emerged as very important by both criteria. These
findings help to enhance confidence in the earlier results and also
help establish that the sources of satisfaction tend to be the same
across different temporal frames.
Study 3 also provided preliminary evidence regarding the important issue of deprivation. Again, it is possible to view psychological needs as qualities whose absence leads to unhappiness and
even "deficiency" diseases, as well as qualities whose presence
leads to happiness and growth (Maslow, 1954). Because deficiency needs and enhancement needs do not necessarily overlap, to
find that the same candidate needs emerge as important by both
criteria would strengthen the case for those needs. In this light, the
results of Study 3 offered somewhat mixed support for our primary
hypotheses. Autonomy, competence, and relatedness again
emerged as very important needs by the "salience" criterion (i.e.,
participants perceived them as strongly missing within unsatisfying events). Furthermore, the absence of all three of the needs
specified by self-determination theory was correlated with eventrelated negative affect. However, the simultaneous analyses revealed that only the absence of competence carried unique predictive variance with respect to event-related affect, indicating that
missing autonomy and missing relatedness may be less important
determinants of felt dissatisfaction. Once again, self-esteem
What are the fundamental psychological needs? The results of
these three studies nicely support our new method for addressing
this important question. First, we found relatively consistent results across our two criteria for determining needs. This is important because it lends greater confidence to our conclusions, and it
also suggests that participants are aware of "what's satisfying
about satisfying events." Second, we found largely consistent
results across three different time frames (i.e., the most satisfying
event of the last week, of the last month, and of the entire
semester). This is important because it indicates that our results are
not artifacts of the particular time frame addressed. Third, although
our results were generally consistent across two different cultures,
there were also meaningful and interpretable differences. This is
important because it suggests that our measurement approach is
able to detect effects consistent with other findings in the literature.
Finally, the method yielded results quite consistent with theory, in
particular Deci and Ryan's (1985, in press) self-determination
theory but also with the many theories that posit self-esteem as a
fundamental human need (Epstein, 1990; Greenberg et al., 1995;
Leary, 1999). This consistency is important because it suggests
that our new approach may supply a fruitful new means of confirming and perhaps extending existing theories of optimal
experience.
Specifically, the results lend good support for self-determination
theory's proposal that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are
basic psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, in press). These three
qualities of experience emerged among the four most salient in
every sample, and they accounted for independent variance in the
affect associated with satisfying events. Accordingly, they better
met our two criteria for identifying needs than did six other
candidates, including pleasure-stimulation, physical thriving, self-
336
actualization-meaning, security, popularity-influence, and moneyluxury. Thus, it appears that self-determination theory's "big three"
needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness may indeed serve as
important foundations on which to build a unified typology of motives, in the same way that the Big Five personality traits have served
to unify trait psychology (McCrae & Costa, 1995). In addition to
confirming important postulates of self-determination theory, the current research also extends past self-determination theory research in
three major ways: by testing autonomy, competence, and relatedness
against seven other theoretically derived needs, by introducing a new
narrative methodology for studying needs, and by introducing a new
criterion for identifying "true" needs.
It is interesting that if one were to pick a single need that is most
important to satisfy in the United States, the current data suggest
it would be self-esteem. Not only was self-esteem at the top of the
list in all three U.S. samples, it also accounted for the most
independent variation in event-related affect. Self-determination
theory does not have a way to account for these findings, except
perhaps to consider self-esteem as a well-being outcome rather
than as a predictor. However, given the prominence of self-esteem
in so many other need-based theories, it might be imprudent to
consign self-esteem to the outcome category rather than considering it as a need in its own right. Another way for self-determination
theory to account for these results would be to consider self-esteem
as a broader manifestation of the competence need. However, even
though they may ultimately share roots, competence and selfesteem were empirically separable in our research. Accordingly,
our results concerning "most satisfying events" suggest the preliminary conclusion that there may be four fundamental psychological needs, not three: autonomy, competence, relatedness, and
self-esteem.
In support of this idea is that self-esteem, autonomy, competence, and relatedness also ranked at the top within the South
Korean sample, just as in the U.S. samples. As mentioned earlier,
the appearance of autonomy within this group is important because
it supports Deci and Ryan's claim that autonomy is a universal
need (Deci & Ryan, in press), a claim that has been recently
questioned (Markus et al., 1996). Notably, however, in South
Korea the single most important need to satisfy appears to be
relatedness. Given the collectivistic and communal orientation that
characterizes Korean culture, this finding makes intuitive sense
(Choi & Choi, 1994; Diener, Suh, Smith, & Shao, 1995; Kim,
1994). Although some might feel that this finding poses a challenge to our theory, we would again stress that our approach only
specified a set of important needs, and it made no predictions
regarding relative orderings within this set. Thus, in sum, it appears that both universalist and cross-culturalist perspectives concerning fundamental psychological needs may be correct, in different ways. That is, although all humans may need certain basic
experiences to be happy, it appears that different cultures may
emphasize or condone some experiences more than others, leading
to meaningful variations within the basic set. Of course, the
cross-cultural findings remain to be replicated, ideally in other
collectivist cultures besides South Korea.
Study 3 replicated the Study 1 and Study 2 effects concerning
"what's satisfying about satisfying events," and it also supplied
interesting preliminary information about "what's unsatisfying
about unsatisfying events." The lack of autonomy, competence,
and relatedness emerged as most salient within participants' direct
ratings of their most unsatisfying events, echoing the earlier findings concerning satisfying events and further supporting selfdetermination theory's assumption that these are fundamental
needs. Again, self-esteem was also important by this criterion. Of
interest is that lack of security also emerged as a fifth prominent
feature of unsatisfying events, consistent with deficiency-based
models of needs (Maslow, 1954). It appears that when things go
wrong, people may strongly wish for the safety and predictability
that they often take for granted.
One other finding is notable: Results appear to be robust with
respect to relevant individual differences. In Study 1, variations in
individual need-preferences did not moderate the main effects of
need experiences on event-related affect, as would be expected by
a "matching" hypothesis in which experiences are especially satisfying if they accord with a person's preferences (Oishi, Diener,
Suh, & Lucas, 1999). Additionally, in Study 2 there were no
interactions of needs with culture (U.S. vs. Korean) in predicting
event-related affect. In sum, then, we found good support for our
universalist assumptions regarding the importance of autonomy,
competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, in press).4
What do we mean by "universal" needs? Although space precludes thorough consideration of this question, we will at least
state our assumptions. Psychological needs are evolved desires that
can be found within every member of the human species (Deci &
Ryan, in press). These inborn yearnings carry little information
about exactly what behaviors to engage in, a fact that allows for
considerable behavioral plasticity. Instead, the needs tend to pull
people toward the same general experiences and incentives within
almost any behavioral domain. When a person behaves successfully within a particular life domain, then beneficial adaptive
consequences and rewarding experiences ensue. These experiences
help reinforce the particular behavior, causing the individual to
seek further challenges and satisfactions within that domain. Thus,
we suggest that psychological needs evolved, in part, to help
individuals find conducive social and vocational niches and to
motivate them to develop their skills further within those niches
(Buss, 1997; Sheldon, in press). These speculations also await
further research.
Rethinking the Hierarchy Concept
Maslow's (1954) five-level hierarchical conception of needs has
received little research support, although it remains popular in
introductory-psychology textbooks. The current results suggest at
least two fruitful ways of thinking about the need-hierarchy concept. One way to define a hierarchy is in terms of a prioritization
of the relative importance of different elements. In such an approach, one may ask, "Which needs head the list, in terms of their
strong salience to participants, and their demonstrated impact upon
health and thriving outcomes?" Viewed in this way, our results
suggest that autonomy, relatedness, competence, and self-esteem
should be placed at the "top" of the hierarchy (although, again, the
relative ordering of these four needs may vary from culture to
4
Of course, it is difficult to draw conclusions from null effects. It may
be that further studies, using different or better measures of individual
differences in need preferences, would find more support for the matching
hypothesis.
337
culture). Security, self-actualization-meaning, and physical thriving occupy a position of lower importance within the hierarchy.
Finally, popularity-influence and money-luxury are of little or no
importance, and money-luxury experiences may even be detrimental to satisfaction, at least considered relative to the other
needs.
Notably, in such a "list"-based conception of hierarchy, there is
no assumption that satisfaction of any particular need is a precondition for the satisfaction of any other need. However, one reason
for the perennial appeal of Maslow's theory is that it acknowledges
a seemingly obvious truism: that it is easier to focus on the "finer"
things if certain basics are taken care of (Oishi, Diener, Lucas, &
Suh, 1999). In fact, although the complex five-level hierarchy
proposed by Maslow has not withstood the test of time, there has
been some support for a two-level distinction between "deficiency" or "security" needs on the one hand and "enhancement" or
"growth" needs on the other (Wahbah & Bridwell, 1976). Our
results may offer further support for such a distinction. First, in
Study 3 a somewhat different pattern of findings was found regarding participants' most unsatisfying (deficient) experiences
compared with their most satisfying (enhancing) experiences. Specifically, insecurity emerged as very salient within participants'
"most unsatisfying" events and as a strong predictor of affect
within such events. This is consistent with Maslow's assumption
that security needs must be taken care of before growth and positive experience can become predominant (see also Oishi, Diener,
Lucas, & Suh, 1999). In addition, autonomy and relatedness did
not as strongly influence the affect associated with unsatisfying
events, suggesting that these two qualities of experience may be
more important for obtaining enhancement than for avoiding
deficiencies.
information. Relatedly, the typical frequency or category breadth
of different types of experiences should be examined as additional
predictive variables (e.g., winning the lottery, a low-frequency
event, might for that reason be more satisfying than a hug from
one's spouse). A second limitation is our reliance on self-reported
outcome variables. It would be desirable to show that need satisfaction is associated with other more objective indicators of thriving, such as physical health and successful task performance.
Perhaps psychological needs will prove to be less important for
such outcomes, compared with their effects on mood. Another
limitation is our exclusive use of college-age individuals; perhaps
older adults would find different kinds of experiences most satisfying, such as self-actualization-meaning or security. Additionally, our participants were relatively affluent and high-functioning;
perhaps different candidate needs, such as money-luxury or
popularity-influence, would emerge as most satisfying in stressed
or impoverished populations (Biswas-Diener & Diener, 2000), if
for no other reason than that they help individuals obtain the basic
requirements of living. Also, it will be necessary to examine the
effects of cultural variables and media on construals of satisfaction; perhaps the very concept of satisfaction is inextricably tied to
western-style psychological needs (Markus et al., 1996). Finally, it
will be important to replicate the current findings using other
question wordings (Schwarz & Strack, 1999), and also with other
methodologies besides "most satisfying event" descriptions, such
as daily diary, experience sampling, or ethnographic approaches.
In addition, other candidate needs beyond our 10 might be examined, such as needs for cognition, closure, or self-consistency.
Thus, we suggest that one possible way to interpret the current
results is to say that autonomy and relatedness needs occupy the
higher, "enhancement" level of a two-tier hierarchy, whereas security occupies the lower "deficiency" level, and self-esteem and
competence exist and have influence at both levels. Such an
arrangement would explain why autonomy and relatedness were
relatively less important within unsatisfying events, why security
was relatively more important within unsatisfying events, and why
self-esteem and competence were important for both types of
events. This model would also take into account the fact that
self-esteem can be either "contingent" or "true" (Deci & Ryan,
1995; Kernis, Brown, & Brody, 2000), that is, a source of anxiety
or of genuine satisfaction, and also the fact that competence
behaviors can be either appetitive or aversive (Elliot & Church,
1997; Elliot & Sheldon, 1997), that is, guided by extrinsic pressures or by intrinsic interests (Ryan & Deci, 2000). However,
further research will be necessary to validate this preliminary
suggestion and also to explore whether there is any contingent
relationship between "lower"-level need-satisfaction and the subsequent satisfaction of "higher-level" needs.
What's satisfying about satisfying events? In other words, what
experiential contents and characteristics make people happiest, and
thus qualify as psychological needs? According to the current
research, the answer is autonomy, competence, relatedness, and
self-esteem. Security may also be a need, which becomes salient in
times of privation. Pleasure-stimulation, self-actualizationmeaning, popularity-influence, and physical thriving are less important, and we would tend to deny them "need" status. Least
deserving of need status is money-luxury. Although further work
is required, we suggest that these findings may have strong relevance for society's goal of providing optimal social and developmental environments for its citizens (Kahneman, Diener &
Schwarz, 1999). In other words, it appears that authorities and
social planners should try to help their charges obtain regular
experiences of autonomy, competence, relatedness, and selfesteem in order to ensure that they thrive.
Limitations and Future Directions
One potential limitation of the current research is that rare-butpowerful experiences, such as moments of spiritual conversion or
personal transformation, are probably underrepresented by using
the current methodology (Emmons, 1999); thus asking about "the
most satisfying event of your whole life" might yield important
Conclusion
References
Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). Introduction to motivation. New York: Van
Nostrand.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
Freeman.
Baumeister, R. (1991). Meanings of life. New York: Guilford Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
338
Biswas-Diener, R., & Diener, E. (2000). Making the best of a bad situation:
Subjective well-being in the slums of Calcutta. Manuscript under
review.
Bradburn, N. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago:
Aldine.
Buss, D. M. (1997). Evolutionary foundations of personality. In R. Hogan,
J. A. Johnson & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology
(pp. 317-344). San Diego: Academic Press.
Carnegie, D. (1936). How to win friends and influence people. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Carver, C , & Baird, E. (1998). The American dream revisited: Is it what
you want or why you want it that matters? Psychological Science, 9,
289-292.
Choi, S.-C, & Choi, S.-H. (1994). We-ness: A Korean discourse of
collectivism. In G. Yoon & S-C, Choi (Eds.), Psychology of the Korean
people: Collectivism and Individualism (pp. 57-84). Seoul, Korea:
Dong-A.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and selfdetermination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true
self-esteem. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem
(pp. 31-49). New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (in press). The "what" and "why" of goal
pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry.
Derber, C. (1979). The pursuit of attention: Power and individualism in
everyday life. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Smith, H., & Shao, L. (1995). National differences
in reported subjective well-being: Why do they occur? Social Indicators
Research, 34, 7-32.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach
and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.
Elliot, A. J., & Sheldon, K. M. (1996). Avoidance achievement motivation:
A personal goals analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 171-185.
Emmons, R. A. (1989). The personal strivings approach to personality. In
L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psychology
(pp. 87-126). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Emmons, R. A. (1999). The psychology of ultimate concerns: Motivation
and spirituality in personality. New York: Guilford Press.
Epstein, S. (1990). Cognitive-experiential self-theory. In L. A. Pervin
(Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 165-192).
New York: Guilford Press.
Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Frankl, V. (1997). Man's search for ultimate meaning. New York: Plenum
Press.
Freud, S. (1920). Beyond the pleasure principle. London: Hogarth.
Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1995). Toward a dualmotive depth psychology of self and social behavior. In M. H. Kernis
(Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 73-99). New York: Plenum
Press.
Harackiewicz, J., & Sansone, C. (1991). Goals and intrinsic motivation:
You can get there from here. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 7, 21-49.
Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1997). The cultural construction of
self-enhancement: An examination of group-serving biases. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 72, 1268-1283.
Higgins, E. T. (1999). Promotion and prevention as a motivational duality.
Implications for evaluative processes. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.),
Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 503-525). New York:
Guilford Press.
Hogan, R. (1996). A socioanalytic perspective on the five-factor model. In
J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical
perspectives (pp. 163-179). New York: Guilford Press.
lyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A
cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 76, 349-366.
Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Preface. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of
hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream:
Correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 410-422.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream:
Well-being correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 281-288.
Kernis, M. H., Brown, A. C , & Brody, G. H. (2000). Fragile self-esteem
in children and its associations with perceived patterns of parent-child
communication. Journal of Personality, 68, 225-252.
Kim, U. (1994). Introduction to individualism and collectivism: Conceptual clarification and elaboration. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagiticibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism:
Theory, method, and application (pp. 19-40). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
King, L. A., & Napa, C. K. (1998). What makes a life good? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 156-165.
Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Lieberman, C. (1995). The collective
construction of self esteem: Implications for culture, self, and emotion.
In J. A. Russell & J. Fernandez-Dols (Eds.), Everyday conceptions of
emotion: An introduction to the psychology, anthropology and linguistics of emotion (pp. 523-550). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kwan, V. S. Y., Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. M. (1997). Pancultural
explanations for life satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to selfesteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1038-1051.
Leary, M. R. (1999). Making sense of self-esteem. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 8, 32-35.
Little, B. R. (1999). Personality and motivation: Personal action and the
conative evolution. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (2nd ed.), pp. 501-524). New York:
Guilford Press.
Markus, H. R., Kitayama, S., & Heiman, R. J. (1996). Culture and "basic"
psychological principles. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.),
Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 857-913). New
York: Guilford Press.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper &
Row.
McClelland, D. (1985). Human motivation. Glennville, IL: Scott Foresman.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1995). Toward a new generation of
personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In
J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical
perspectives. New York: Guilford Press.
McDougall, W. (1908). Introduction to social psychology. London:
Methuen.
Murray, H. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Oishi, S., Diener, E. F., Lucas, R. E., & Suh, E. M. (1999). Cross-cultural
variations in predictors of life satisfaction: Perspectives from needs and
values. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 980-990.
Oishi, S., Diener, E., Suh, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Value as a moderator
in subjective well-being. Journal of Personality, 67, 157-184.
Oishi, S., Schimmack, U., Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1998). The measurement of values and individualism-collectivism. Personality & Social
Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1177-1189.
Reis, H. T., & Patrick, B. C. (1996). Attachment and intimacy: Component
processes. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychol-
339
ogy: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 523-563). New York: Guilford
Press.
Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, R., & Ryan. R. (2000).
Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419-435.
Rogers, C. R. (1963). The actualizing tendency in relation to "motives" and
to consciousness. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 11, pp. 1-24). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative
processes. Journal of Personality, 63, 397-427.
Ryan, R. M , Chirkov, V., Little, T., Sheldon, K. M., Timoshina, E., &
Deci, E. (1999). The American Dream in Russia: Extrinsic aspirations in
two cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 15091524.
Ryan, R. M , & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the
facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.
American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1998). The role of purpose in life and personal
growth in positive human health. In P. T. P. Wong, & P. S. Fry (Eds.),
The human quest for meaning: A handbook of psychological research
and clinical applications (pp. 213-235). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. (1995). The language of personality: Lexical
perspectives on the five-factor model. In J. Wiggins (Ed.), The fivefactor model of personality (pp. 21-50). New York: Guilford Press.
Schmuck, P., Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic
goals: Their structure and relationship to well-being in German and U. S.
college students. Social Indicators Research, 50, 225-241.
Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1999). Reports of subjective well-being: Judgmental processes and their methodological implications. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of
hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Sheldon, K. M. (in press). The self-concordance model of healthy goalstriving: Implications for well-being and personality development. In P.
Schmuck & K. Sheldon (Eds.), Life goals and well-being: Suggestions
for striving. Hogrefe.
Sheldon. K. M., & Bettencourt, B. A. (2000). Psychological needs and
subjective well-being in social groups. Unpublished manuscript.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need-satisfaction, and
longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 482-497.
Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1998). Pursuing personal goals: Skills
enable progress, but not all progress is beneficial. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1319-1331.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., & Reis, H. (1996). What makes for a good
day? Competence and autonomy in the day, and in the person. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1270-1279.
Sun, E., Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1996). Events and subjective well-being:
Only recent events matter. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1091-1102.
Swann, W. B. (1990). To be adored or to be known? The interplay of
self-enhancement and self-verification. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of
social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 408-448). New York: Guilford Press.
Thomas, D. L., & Diener, E. (1990). Memory accuracy in the recall of
emotions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 291-297.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of
culture. In J. H. Barkow & L. Cosmides (Eds.), The adapted mind:
Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19-136).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Wahba, M. A., & Bridwell, L. G. (1976). Maslow reconsidered: A review
of research on the need hierarchy theory. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 15, 212-240.
Watson, D., Tellegen, A., & Clark, L. (1988). Development and validation
of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories, and research.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.
Appendix
Labels and Conceptual Definitions of Needs Used in the Measure of Individual
Differences in Need Preferences in Study 1
1. Autonomy—independence: Feeling like you are the cause of your
own actions rather than feeling that external forces or pressures are the
cause of your actions.
2. Competence—effectance: Feeling that you are very capable and effective in your actions rather than feeling incompetent or ineffective.
3. Relatedness- bekmgingness: Feeling that you have regular intimate contact with people who care about you rather than feeling lonely and uncared for.
4. Self-actualization-meaning: Feeling that you are developing your
best potentials and making life meaningful rather than feeling stagnant and
that life does not have much meaning.
5. Security-control: Feeling safe and in control of your life rather than
feeling uncertain and threatened by your circumstances.
6. Money-luxury: Feeling that you have plenty of money to buy most of
what you want rather than feeling like a poor person who has no nice
possessions.
7. Influence-popularity: Feeling that you are liked, respected, and have
influence over others rather than feeling like a person whose advice or
opinions nobody is interested in.
8. Physical-bodily: Feeling that your body is healthy and well-taken
care of rather than feeling out of shape or unhealthy.
9. Self esteem-self-respect: Feeling that you are a worthy person who is
as good as anyone else rather than feeling like a "loser."
10. Pleasure-stimulation: Feeling that you get plenty of enjoyment and
pleasure rather than feeling bored and understimulated by life.
Received June 1, 2000
Revision received August 31, 2000
Accepted September 11, 2000

Document 6516248

Transcription

Similar documents

D HENWOOD.pptx - Association of Sport Performance Centres

metabolon - QUESTOR Centre

Quincy`s Genetic Diversity Report from the VGL

liry"

Mission Statement.key

diagram

prospective students POSTER1

here - People Development Planning

Child Psychiatry Handouts

Ryan Adler Illusionist